If you like discussing politics and other related topics then your new home (hopefully) for doing just that can be found on Punndits.com! Come join us and help us grow Punndits into a wonderful and safe place to discuss politics with everyone.

The Outcome of the Packers Game Was Unchangeable?

In an earlier thread, which has now dropped off the forum's front page, it was stated that the outcome of the Packers game was inevitable based on the defense's inability to slow down Green Bay's offense in the second half. I disagree.

Green Bay scored their decisive touchdown with 1:34 left in the fourth quarter.

Game situation 1 of 4: (3rd Quarter) Dallas has the ball on 2nd and 5 at the Packer 36 following a DeMarco Murray five yard run. Pass play results in an incompletion. Clock stops. 40 seconds elapses if Dallas elects to run the ball for a 3rd and short or 1st down opportunity.

Game situation 2 of 4: (3rd Quarter) It is 2nd and 10 on the Dallas 15 yard line following a first down pass incompletion. Clock stops. The prospect of a possible 3rd and short play happens if Murray carries the ball and runs an additional 40 seconds off the clock.

Game situation 3 of 4: (4th Quarter) Murray runs five yards on first down to make it 2nd and 5 at the Dallas 25. Clock is running. Dallas elects to pass and Romo is intercepted. While the play was overturned upon review, the clock has been stopped. Another 40 seconds ticks off if Dallas ran the ball on second down.

Game situation 4 of 4: (4th Quarter) With the Cowboys still holding the lead, Dallas elects to pass at their 35-yard line on 2nd and 6 and Romo is intercepted again. If Dallas had run for third and short or better, 40 seconds more slips from the Packers' grasp.

Total probable time which could have been taken off the game clock by running the ball only four more times during the game:

2 minutes 40 seconds.

Again, Green Bay scored the decisive touchdown with 1:34 left in the fourth quarter. That's one minute 34 seconds. Executing only four run plays in place of four pass plays, in reasonable down and distance situations, regardless of result minus fumbling, could have changed the outcome of the game in Dallas' favor. Greater time of possession for Dallas would have been the difference in the end.

Why were some observers calling for Garrett to run the ball more during the second half to protect the lead? Good question.

so you start laying out scenarios in the 3rd quarter? Did you see the EASE in which Green Bay scored. Maybe you don't recall the EASE at which Detroit scored? Or how about the EASE in which Denver scored? Or how about the TD at the end of the first half the Bears scored! My point...teams seemingly CHOSE when they wanted to score against Dallas this year. So if the opposition NEEDED to score quicker than they already were....it is highly likely they could have. Dallas had enough offense to win Green Bay, Detroit and Denver....laying any of those losses on the offense is comical to me. On many occasions in ALL 3 losses...the defense could have made ONE...ONE stop on 3rd or 4th down....and we could have won. But yet we want to disect in hindsight what the offense did not do?

Garrett, or Callahan, or whoever you believe was calling the plays, definitely should have run the ball more in the final offensive series of that game. There's nobody who debates that, I don't think.

But the way you're looking at things is a bit backwards, in my opinion. High percentage passes with the objective of extending drives are ok plays to call when you're running a game out. You're trying to maintain possession, and shouldn't simply be looking at the worst case scenario of how much time you can run off in a single series if you don't convert. You want to stay out of 3rd down situations if you're playing for possession, and, in Dallas, that means passing some.

I would also argue that, had we handled those series differently and run in a couple of situations where we also should have, then GB would have played differently in terms of their own play calling. And I have very little comfort in our back 7 at that point in the game stopping a passing offense that had demonstrated the ability to move the ball in chunks against us in the second half. You're right that the outcome might have been different, but it might also have been exactly the same.

I'd rather have seen our own passing game more effective when we needed it to be. Blowing high-percentage completions and the two picks (only one of which was upheld) were back breakers even more than the play calling mistakes. They all contributed to that loss.

Wasn't the first time and won't be the last as long as RJ is in charge.

Really wish someone would go back through all this games as HC and isolate all those time/game management situations to refresh our memory.

Those games all come back to bite you when you're staring at a win and you're in game at the end of every season.

Click to expand...

I haven't given up on Garrett yet. However, the defense had already proven porous before the Packers game. Simply having a 26-3 lead at the half should not make anyone overly confident that a defense with so many holes would guarantee a second half performance equal to the defense's first half effort. This is why, I believe, game commentators and some fans were questioning certain pass play selections during the second half.

Wasn't the first time and won't be the last as long as RJ is in charge.

Really wish someone would go back through all this games as HC and isolate all those time/game management situations to refresh our memory.

Those games all come back to bite you when you're staring at a win and you're in game at the end of every season.

Click to expand...

They do. There are a number of coaching mistakes that contribute to losses, and in close losses, coupled with dozens of other ifs and buts, they can be the difference between winning and losing games.
There's a lot of debate after any given loss about how much of a role coaching or play calling might have played. Personally, I think that's really overblown a lot of the time--the same way a QB is easy to blame, sometimes unfairly. But there's no doubt in my mind game day coaching played a bigger role than it should have in the GB game last year. The same goes for the AZ loss a few years back where everybody gets up in arms about 'icing your own kicker' when the real issue was not using the clock more effectively at the end to run another play and make the kick easier.

All that said, there's a huge difference between game day coaching liabilities being a contributing factor and it being a deciding factor. It's a contributing factor for every team in the league to some degree, as no coach is perfect. And we've got deciding factors that cause us to lose multiple games that Garrett can still help us address. We've also got an organization right now where addressing some of those deciding factors appropriately happens to be really, really challenging. I don't like the periodic gaffes, and I don't like that they're still happening 4 seasons in. That said, they're still relatively minor problems in the scheme of things, really. If we've got a guy who can bring sanity and structure to the organization while still getting better at the things he needs to improve, I'm happy to give him room to do it. I much prefer that to starting over again with an upside down cap and what's a dysfunctional organization above him in a lot of ways.

In an earlier thread, which has now dropped off the forum's front page, it was stated that the outcome of the Packers game was inevitable based on the defense's inability to slow down Green Bay's offense in the second half. I disagree.

Green Bay scored their decisive touchdown with 1:34 left in the fourth quarter.

Game situation 1 of 4: (3rd Quarter) Dallas has the ball on 2nd and 5 at the Packer 36 following a DeMarco Murray five yard run. Pass play results in an incompletion. Clock stops. 40 seconds elapses if Dallas elects to run the ball for a 3rd and short or 1st down opportunity.

Game situation 2 of 4: (3rd Quarter) It is 2nd and 10 on the Dallas 15 yard line following a first down pass incompletion. Clock stops. The prospect of a possible 3rd and short play happens if Murray carries the ball and runs an additional 40 seconds off the clock.

Game situation 3 of 4: (4th Quarter) Murray runs five yards on first down to make it 2nd and 5 at the Dallas 25. Clock is running. Dallas elects to pass and Romo is intercepted. While the play was overturned upon review, the clock has been stopped. Another 40 seconds ticks off if Dallas ran the ball on second down.

Game situation 4 of 4: (4th Quarter) With the Cowboys still holding the lead, Dallas elects to pass at their 35-yard line on 2nd and 6 and Romo is intercepted again. If Dallas had run for third and short or better, 40 seconds more slips from the Packers' grasp.

Total probable time which could have been taken off the game clock by running the ball only four more times during the game:

2 minutes 40 seconds.

Again, Green Bay scored the decisive touchdown with 1:34 left in the fourth quarter. That's one minute 34 seconds. Executing only four run plays in place of four pass plays, in reasonable down and distance situations, regardless of result minus fumbling, could have changed the outcome of the game in Dallas' favor. Greater time of possession for Dallas would have been the difference in the end.

Why were some observers calling for Garrett to run the ball more during the second half to protect the lead? Good question.

Click to expand...

I don't think the problem was necessarily the offense. our defense suckd and suckd bad. with that said, who says we wouldn't have gotten first downs if we ran. you are assuming equal results of no gain for the running plays and the incompletions. plus we were running well and they even admitted they couldn't stop the run.

with that said, I blame Romo.he has to show more trust in the OL and not chicken out to a pass play when he sees an 8 man front.

People seem to forget the 7 ypc Murray was racking up on top of not running the ball on these crucial downs. I understand the short passing offense is used to replace the run game in some offenses (cough) but why do that when it is proving successful? As it has been stated numerous times by GB defenders, they couldn't stop the run and were surprised/relieved that we went away from it. The GB game was worse than DET in my book despite the 4 TOs gifted to the O. Aikman, a good friend of JG, couldn't resist calling out his buddy throughout the second half for not continuing to run the ball. It was plain to anyone watching the game that Dallas gave the game away despite the D.

The Green Bay is one of the most important games in Garrett's career, from which he must learn from in order to develop into a better game managing head coach. In the first half, the offensive gameplan was to primarily run the ball with the understanding that the Packers struggled in run defense. It succeeded. The defensive gameplan was to contain Eddie Lacy and make backup Matt Flynn make plays with his arm. It succeeded.

Something happened at halftime. Green Bay made adjustments to its offensive gameplan. Flynn and his receivers were more in sync. That's not surprising since Dallas' defense had struggled mightily to stop the pass all season long.

Dallas made a halftime adjustment too. The gameplan was to protect and strengthen its lead by passing more than running the ball--which was the exact opposite of what worked in the first half. That move worked directly into the Packers' favor.

Even average teams can win games by leaning on their primary strengths if their opponent cannot counter them well. Successful football is all about execution. Stick with what works until the other team stops it. That's when you make adjustments to your gameplan to try and win games, not before.

It's inevitable when your QB throws to the other team instead of handing it off to the running back who is gashing the opposing defense.

Click to expand...

True enough. It does raise a question though.

If you have a large lead, do you tell your quarterback to keep throwing the ball, increasing the opportunity of him tossing an interception (and throwing incompletions to stop the clock too)? Or do you tell your quarterback to lean on his offensive line and running back, whom the defense has had difficulty stopping (and keep the clock running)?

The Green Bay is one of the most important games in Garrett's career, from which he must learn from in order to develop into a better game managing head coach. In the first half, the offensive gameplan was to primarily run the ball with the understanding that the Packers struggled in run defense. It succeeded. The defensive gameplan was to contain Eddie Lacy and make backup Matt Flynn make plays with his arm. It succeeded.

Something happened at halftime. Green Bay made adjustments to its offensive gameplan. Flynn and his receivers were more in sync. That's not surprising since Dallas' defense had struggled mightily to stop the pass all season long.

Dallas made a halftime adjustment too. The gameplan was to protect and strengthen its lead by passing more than running the ball--which was the exact opposite of what worked in the first half. That move worked directly into the Packers' favor.

Even average teams can win games by leaning on their primary strengths if their opponent cannot counter them well. Successful football is all about execution. Stick with what works until the other team stops it. That's when you make adjustments to your gameplan to try and win games, not before.